commons-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kirill Grouchnikov <kirillc...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: [betwixt] Time and memory performance
Date Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:57:16 GMT
Robert,

> it wasn't intended to be a personal attack. as i said
> off-list, i decide
> to give you the benefit of the doubt though others may
> not. if you
> really want to achieve the gaols you state, then i'd
> recommend that you
> adopt a more positive attitude. 

Still hadn't seen any doubts (and this discussion is
getting older every minute of it) - see my previous mails.
The attitude remains realistic.

> you've picked up a few things missing from the
> documentation. thanks for
> that. 

I'd say more than a few.

> i had hoped that in return i might help to open your mind
> a little to
> other approaches to data binding. there is a real lack of
> knowledge out
> there about which general approaches are most appropriate
> to which
> problems. i had hoped that you might be able to step up
> and but that
> will mean casting aside the advocacy but maybe i've just
> been wasting my
> time...

If you really want to see an open approach to data binding
(gee, i've coded and tested twenty different libraries, i
guess i really need help opening my mind), take a look at
JAXB 2.0. Not only it generates classes from XSD / DTD /
RelaxNG schemas which can then be marshaled / unmarshaled.
It can take *any* Java class (annotated or not) and marshal
it to XML and back (i believe that's what you call a
dynamic approach). If you were looking for a single reason
why JAXB 2.0 got 10 out of 10 - this is it. 

In addition, in our world of inter-systems communication,
data is king. It doesn't matter what you do with it, and in
what language, as long as you don't corrupt it or change
it.  You argue that dynamic (reflection-based) libraries
are more flexible. How about the following:
1. The format for get/set pairs is very inflexible.
2. If attribute-based approach is taken, a configuration
file must be supplied in order to omit some attributes /
classes from being marshaled. Take JXDM data (over 8.5 MB
of schemas). That would be mighty plenty of configuration
files to (manually) write and maintain.
3. What would it take to switch from Betwixt to say, JiBX
or XStream *and* maintain the data format? Conf file for
every class and attribute? That's the best scenario. The
worst - you wouldn't be able to. Welcome to schema-based
world.
4. JAXB 2.0 - generated classes can be manually edited (or
extended if you like) without changes to underlying data
format. The marshaler will simply ignore your additional
attributes.

BindMark project was not created to help people storing
20-line XML config file on a local system. Who would care
that it takes 500ms instead of 20ms if it happens only
once. I'm talking about real-world business systems that
handle thousands of XML transaction per minute and work
with external system with rigid contracts?

Data is king.

Kirill




		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message